Pediatric Radiology

, Volume 40, Issue 12, pp 1874–1879 | Cite as

Fetal MRI of clubfoot associated with myelomeningocele

  • Sabah ServaesEmail author
  • Andrea Hernandez
  • Leonardo Gonzalez
  • Teresa Victoria
  • Mark Johnson
  • Diego Jaramillo
  • J. Christopher Edgar
  • Ann Johnson
Original Article



The sensitivity and specificity of evaluating clubfoot deformity by MR in high-risk fetuses is currently unknown.


To correlate fetal MRI with US in the assessment of clubfoot and to identify the MRI features most characteristic of clubfoot.

Materials and methods

With IRB approval and informed consent, the presence of fetal clubfoot was prospectively evaluated in mothers referred for MRI for a fetus with myelomeningocele. Two radiologists blind to the US results independently reviewed the MRI for the presence of clubfoot. MRI results were compared with US results obtained the same day and birth outcomes.


Of 20 patients enrolled, there were 13 clubfeet. Interobserver agreement for the presence of clubfoot was 100%. The sensitivity of the MRI exam was 100% and the specificity 85.2%. A dedicated sagittal imaging plane through the ankle region allowed the most confident diagnosis; medial deviation of the foot relative to the leg was seen in all 13 fetuses with clubfoot.


The correlation of fetal MRI with US in the evaluation of clubfoot yields a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 85.2%. The sagittal plane provided the most useful information.


Fetal Clubfoot MRI US 



This work was supported by an SPR seed grant.


  1. 1.
    Quinn TM, Hubbard AM, Adzick NS (1998) Prenatal magnetic resonance imaging enhances fetal diagnosis. J Pediatr Surg 33:553–558CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Breysem L, Bosmans H, Dymarkowski S et al (2003) The value of fast MR imaging as an adjunct to ultrasound in prenatal diagnosis. Eur Radiol 13:1538–1548CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tamsel S, Ozbek SS, Sener RN et al (2004) MR imaging of fetal abnormalities. Comput Med Imaging Graph 28:141–149CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Levine D, Barnes PD, Sher S et al (1998) Fetal fast MR imaging: reproducibility, technical quality, and conspicuity of anatomy. Radiology 206:549–554PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kubik-Huch RA, Huisman TA, Wisser J et al (2000) Ultrafast MR imaging of the fetus. AJR 174:1599–1606PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Huppert BJ, Brandt KR, Ramin KD et al (1999) Single-shot fast spin-echo MR imaging of the fetus: a pictorial essay. Radiographics 19 Spec No:S215–S227PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Applegate KE (2004) Can MR imaging be used to characterize fetal musculoskeletal development? Radiology 233:305–306CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Connolly SA, Jaramillo D, Hong JK et al (2004) Skeletal development in fetal pig specimens: MR imaging of femur with histologic comparison. Radiology 233:505–514CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Benacerraf BR, Frigoletto FD (1985) Prenatal ultrasound diagnosis of clubfoot. Radiology 155:211–213PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Garjian KV, Pretorius DH, Budorick NE et al (2000) Fetal skeletal dysplasia: three-dimensional US—initial experience. Radiology 214:717–723PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dighe M, Fligner C, Cheng E et al (2008) Fetal skeletal dysplasia: an approach to diagnosis with illustrative cases. Radiographics 28:1061–1077CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cassart M, Massez A, Cos T et al (2007) Contribution of three-dimensional computed tomography in the assessment of fetal skeletal dysplasia. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 29:537–543CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Westcott MA, Dynes MC, Remer EM et al (1992) Congenital and acquired orthopedic abnormalities in patients with myelomeningocele. Radiographics 12:1155–1173PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Keret D, Ezra E, Lokiec F et al (2002) Efficacy of prenatal ultrasonography in confirmed club foot. J Bone Joint Surg Br 84:1015–1019CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Offerdal K, Jebens N, Blaas HG et al (2007) Prenatal ultrasound detection of talipes equinovarus in a non-selected population of 49, 314 deliveries in Norway. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 30:838–844CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Canto MJ, Cano S, Palau J et al (2008) Prenatal diagnosis of clubfoot in low-risk population: associated anomalies and long-term outcome. Prenat Diagn 28:343–346CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cohen-Overbeek TE, Grijseels EW, Lammerink EA et al (2006) Congenital talipes equinovarus: comparison of outcome between a prenatal diagnosis and a diagnosis after delivery. Prenat Diagn 26:1248–1253CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Treadwell MC, Stanitski CL, King M (1999) Prenatal sonographic diagnosis of clubfoot: implications for patient counseling. J Pediatr Orthop 19:8–10CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mammen L, Benson CB (2004) Outcomes of fetuses with clubfeet diagnosed by prenatal sonography. J Ultrasound Med 23:497–500PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sabah Servaes
    • 1
    Email author
  • Andrea Hernandez
    • 1
  • Leonardo Gonzalez
    • 1
  • Teresa Victoria
    • 1
  • Mark Johnson
    • 2
  • Diego Jaramillo
    • 1
  • J. Christopher Edgar
    • 1
  • Ann Johnson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyThe Children’s Hospital of PhiladelphiaPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Fetal SurgeryThe Children’s Hospital of PhiladelphiaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations